Larry Swedroe

Wise Investing
Click Here

Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

By Larry Swedroe | Oct 21, 2009 |

When tough market times hit, it’s natural to want to flee toward safety. However, letting your emotions get the best of you can be detrimental to your investments.

In 2006, the S&P 500 Index rose 15.8 percent, and purchases of shares in U.S. registered stock mutual funds exceeded redemptions by $159.4 billion. By the last half of 2008, the bear market led to a reversal of flows with redemptions exceeding purchases by $214.6 billion. This is typical — aggregate stock fund flows are positively correlated with stock market returns, as shown by the study “Evidence on Investor Behavior From Aggregate Stock Mutual Fund Flows.”

The authors found that returns only impact inflows — when returns increase, aggregate inflows rise, but outflows don’t slow. Thus, the relationship between returns and flows is entirely related to the effect on inflows. They also found that when volatility (as measured by the VIX) increases, equity fund inflows actually increase, though not as much as outflows. Thus, the net flow relationship caused by volatility is entirely due to the effect of volatility on outflows.

The authors concluded that mutual fund investor purchase decisions are primarily driven by returns, while redemption decisions are primarily driven by risk perceptions. The question we need to answer is: Is the observed behavior productive?

The data demonstrates that, in aggregate, mutual fund investors increase inflows after observing periods of strong performance. They buy at high prices, when future expected returns are lower. The problem doesn’t end there.

Volatility is a measure of risk. When volatility increases, investors demand a larger equity risk premium as compensation for the increased risk. This results in investors attempting to move from equities to riskless assets, causing a drop in equity prices and an increase in expected returns. Thus, investors tend to sell just when expected returns have increased.

Warren Buffett recommends: “If they [investors] insist on trying to time their participation in equities, they should try to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”

The winner’s game is to rebalance your portfolio whenever your allocations drift too far. Rebalancing requires you to fight the tendency to buy high and sell low. By purchasing the assets that have recently underperformed, you’re instead buying low, when future expected returns are higher. And by selling the assets that have recently outperformed, you’re selling when future expected returns lower.

Seems obvious, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, rebalancing for investors is like following a healthy diet and exercise to lose weight — a concept both easy to understand and hard to practice.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    MarkWolfinger

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    Sadly, rebalancing is one of those 'good' habits that are psychologically difficult for the average investor to adopt.

    By coincidence, today I blogged about how certain mindsets can harm an individual's performance as an investor. http://tinyurl.com/yk3rayq

    I still believe that if the general public understood how to use portfolio insurance, many investors would be better served. That idea doesn't replace rebalancing, it's another method for preserving one's assets.

  •  
    2

    larry swedroe

    10/21/09 | Reported as spam

    Message has been deleted.

  •  
    3

    larry swedroe

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    Mark

    I completely agree that rebalancing is extremely difficult for investors to do on their own because they have to fight their emotions of fear and panic in bear markets and greed and envy in bull markets. And they have to also fight the noise created by the financial media and the temptation to listen to the advice of all the talking heads---heads that talk as if they know where the market is going, and say it with great conviction, but what they really know is that they don't know where the market is going but they get paid a lot of money to pretend that they do.

    That is one of the reasons why IMO while investing is relatively simple, it is not easy. It's not easy because we are human beings and subject to emotions. That is why IMO most advisors, if they were willing to admit it, would say they are better ADVISORS than INVESTORS. The reason is that with their money they are subject to the same emotions that are tough to control when it is your money that is involved. However, when advising others they can give rational advice, advice not impacting by emotions.

    That is one of the greatest values of an advisor: After helping to develop the investment plan and integrating it into a well-thought-out estate, tax and risk management (all forms of insurance) plan, the advisor's main role is help the investor to act like the lowly postage stamp.

    The postage stamp does one thing and only thing, but it does it extremely well. It sticks to its letter until it reaches its destination. The job of an investor is to adhere to their plan until they reach their financial goal.

    Those investors that rebalanced during the crisis are far closer to achieving their goals than those that committed the "felony" of panicked selling or committed the "misdemeanor" of simply doing nothing, failing to rebalance out of fear.

  •  
    4

    Patrick Doyle

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    "Winner's game"

    When you say "winner's game" and "loser's game", I wonder if you mean what I think these terms mean.

    A "winner's game" is one like the shot put, where a participant's level of success is proportional to his skill level. A "loser's game" is one like pro bowling, where a participant's level of failure is proportional to the number of mistakes he makes.

    From your writings, I wonder if you use "loser's game" just to mean a game one is likely to lose?

  •  
    5

    larry swedroe

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    Patrick
    A loser's game is one where the strategy is likely to cause you to lose. That is the case with active management of either equities or bonds, or betting on the roulette wheel, or for weekend tennis players trying to hit shots down the lines instead of using the middle of the court. While possible to win the odds are against you.

    The winning strategy is the one most likely to enable you to "win." By definition, passive investors in aggregate beat active investors simply because they have lower costs. Thus their returns on average are higher than the average return of active investors. So if you want above average returns you should simply accept market returns and get them in lowest cost way (and most tax efficient in taxable accounts).

    Charles Ellis wrote the book Winning the Loser's Game--the only sure way to win is not to play--sort of like in the movie War Games when Joshua (the super computer) declares that it an interesting game (thermonuclear warfare). The only winning move is not to play.

  •  
    6

    MrRosemary

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    I am a little curious about rebalancing. What I have seen suggests that very infrequent rebalancing (? 1 year) leads to higher returns with only a small increase in standard deviation, whereas frequent rebalancing can cause a little decrease in return with a small decrease in std deviation.

    Your thoughts on this?

  •  
    7

    MrRosemary

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    The question mark above didn't render my symbol. My intention was to say that I see "infrequent rebalancing" as being greater than one year).

  •  
    8

    larry swedroe

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    Mr Rosemary

    First, let's agree on the purpose of rebalancing. It should be for one reason only: To restore the portfolio to its targeted level of risk, risk that was altered not by design but by the market.

    Second, because on average you will be selling higher expected returning asset classes (e.g., equities) to buy lower expected returning asset classes (e.g., bonds) when you rebalance on average you will be LOWERING expected returns. But you do it, or should. So the more frequent you rebalance it would seem logical that you would have lower returns. But that leaves you to then say rebalancing only annually? But why annually, why not biannual because that would give you even higher expected returns? Bottom line it is all about risk management and not about returns.


    Third, in the absence of transactions costs, you should rebalance daily. That is simple logic. However, in real world there are costs (I would include time and effort to do it, and of course transactions costs and taxes). So you should have rules to try and find the efficient point. That being where you allow some mild drift but not so much that your portfolio's risk changes significantly.

    Given the above time based rules are inappropriate. They should be risk based rules. My own suggestion is to use the 5/25 rule I show in my books. Rebalance whenever the asset class is EITHER 25% out of balance in RELATIVE terms or 5% in ABSOLUTE terms. We use a technology tool that alerts us whenever any asset class is out of balance. An individual might check to see if any is needed quarterly, or more often if there are big moves.

    So if you have a 50% equity allocation you would rebalance if less than 45 or more than 55.

    If you have a 5% allocation to EM though you would rebalance at 3.75 and 6.25.

    You need to check for rebalancing at three levels, equity to fixed income, domestic to international, and individual asset classes.

    Then when doing so you should consider costs, not just do it blindly. So you should consider taxes in your decision. Example might not rebalance if have large ST gain, but might wait until becomes LT. Or might rebalance only to top of range not mid point. Or might defer doing so because new cash is coming available and it can be used to rebalance.

    I hope the above is helpful

  •  
    9

    MrRosemary

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    Yes, quite helpful. Thank you.

  •  
    10

    joegm

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Reacting to Returns and Volatility Can Hurt Your Portfolio

    Life if much simpler for rebalancing if most of your assets are in tax-sheltered accounts, which because of work-related IRA's is commonly the case.

    The ability to rebalance frequently without transaction costs or tax implications is one of the great advantages of having index funds in an IRA. Your transactions are usually limited only by frequent trader rules. With Vanguard, for example, if you sell a fund, you can't buy back into it for three months. There are no transactions costs for any of the funds that I invest in, except for RIETs, for which there's a 1% penalty for sell shares held less that a year.

    If you hold both an traditional IRA and a ROTH IRA (even within the same company), the frequent trader restrictions are applied independently to the two accounts, allowing you to double the frequency of repurchases. As Larry points out, you can also use new investments to rebalance. Furthermore, if you believe it's wise to gradually increase the percentage of bonds in your portfolio as you age, you can do this to some extent by favoring rebalancing from stocks to bonds over rebalancing from bonds to stocks. You can also shift money across asset classes within a tax-sheltered account to counter changes in the taxable portion of your portfolio without the tax consequences of selling non-sheltered assets.

    Taking all of this into account, if much of your portfolio is in index funds in IRA's, you should be able to rebalance at least once a month without penalty. Is it worth the effort? This depends on how much your time is worth to you. In my case, I've follow Larry's general advice on structuring my portfolio (managing risk through asset allocation, investing only in passively managed, low-cost funds, and ignoring market predictions). This leave me with a low-maintenance portfolio and very little to to other that monitor the results, so frequent rebalancing satisfies my psychological need to feel that I'm doing something active, and it certainly does no harm.


Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is principal and director of research for The Buckingham Family of Financial Services. He has authored or co-authored seven books, including The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need.

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is a principal and the director of research for Buckingham Asset Management and BAM Advisor Services. He has also worked with Prudential Home Mortgage and Citicorp, totaling nearly 40 years of managing financial risks for major corporations and advising individuals on ways to do the same.

His opinions and comments expressed on this site are his own and may not accurately reflect those of the firm.

Click Here
track your portfolio